where does one draw the line really. at what point do you require "artists" to censor themselves and become merely "entertainers"? where do these consumer "rights" come from? who dictates what is expected or unexpected in a public performance situation? is the content of a performance situation the province of the artist or the spectator? Right. I realize I forgot what I was trying to get to. Art is really about self expression. Webstuff feels that Art is to "speak out". Why can't the artist just paint a painting expressing how much he loves his wife? Write a sonnet because of a particularly beautiful sunset? Why does he have to make an antiwar statement? There's nothing wrong with McCartney, for example, writing a song speaking out about vegetarianism. I don't have to agree with it but he has the right to do it. But what I think Dan was trying to say, and what I was trying to explain to Webstuff, is that if I go to a McCartney concert and he starts overdoing it then I have the right to be annoyed. I didn't pay $135 to hear a 20 minute speech about animal cruelty and have him try to educate me. Not that he ever did this but I think you see what I'm trying to say, or at least trying to interpret what Dan meant when he wrote "and then instead of entertaining me, lecturing me like a child about the state of the world." To be fair, however, McCartney does put his money where his mouth is, but not all entertainers, sorry, artists do. Hope that made sense. -paul